Religion And God

[lightgigantic]

what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

The point is that action follows belief

For instance take three people and a river

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

All three people display different activities according to their beliefs

In otherwords you cannot expect to get away with steam rolling everything presented in the way of theism and get away with the footnote "Well actually god may exist - we don't logically deny it". Activity denotes the quality of belief and it is from the perception of activity that one can determine whether one is an atheist, agnostic or theist.

Actually it is just a spurious device because an atheist doesn't want to get caught in the logical tabernacle of making absolute statements about the nonexistence of god, which would be a contradiction.

 

[lightgigantic]

what a complete and utter moron you are.

an atheist has a lack of belief in a god, this does not say that there could not be one, that would be infantile in the extreme, as we have not checked under every nook and crannie, in the universe, to see if it's hiding somewhere.
however we have no evidence for a god, so we can be 99.999999999999999% recuring that there is'nt one.
the burden of proof must always remain with the asserter, namely you.

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

The point is that action follows belief

For instance take three people and a river

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

All three people display different activities according to their beliefs

In otherwords you cannot expect to get away with steam rolling everything presented in the way of theism and get away with the footnote "Well actually god may exist - we don't logically deny it". Activity denotes the quality of belief and it is from the perception of activity that one can determine whether one is an atheist, agnostic or theist.

Actually it is just a spurious device because an atheist doesn't want to get caught in the logical tabernacle of making absolute statements about the nonexistence of god, which would be a contradiction. You can use the same argument to theoretically prove that the term "atheist" is only a conceptual ideal

 

[SnakeLord]

One person believes there are crocodiles in the river
One person believes he doesn't know whether crococdiles exist in the river
One person believes there are no crocodiles in the river

One person is unsure as to whether there are crocodiles in the river and so collects evidence to determine the answer. Two jump in head first, one never moves and the man who bothered to collect the evidence is the only one that makes it across safely.

 

[S.A.M.]

One person is unsure as to whether there are crocodiles in the river and so collects evidence to determine the answer. Two jump in head first, one never moves and the man who bothered to collect the evidence is the only one that makes it across safely.

Specious argument:

Assumptions:

1. One does not move.
2. Two jumps in headfirst.
3. Three can recognize crocodiles or evidence thereof.

 

[superluminal]

Specious argument:

Assumptions:

1. One does not move.
2. Two jumps in headfirst.
3. Three can recognize crocodiles or evidence thereof.

I'd love to follow along with this, but, what? Huh?

 

[lightgigantic]

One person is unsure as to whether there are crocodiles in the river and so collects evidence to determine the answer. Two jump in head first, one never moves and the man who bothered to collect the evidence is the only one that makes it across safely.

Actually the example is after all the evidence has been collected - in otherwords, after all is said and done in the way of observation and fact finding, one person believes there is, one believes there is not and one person believes he doesn't know for sure - according to their activities you can assess their beliefs

 

[superluminal]

Hey my theist friends. I keep forgetting. Do any of you believe that god is a real entity in the cosmos? All of your philosophising muddies the waters sometimes. You can wrap all the words you want around your "beliefs". But is god a real thing to you? Like a rock, or a bit of iridium-laced dirt in a certain geological boundary I know of?

Please refresh me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Like a rock, or a bit of iridium-laced dirt in a certain geological boundary I know of?

That you know of?
that's the point - how do you bring an important person (like say the president of america) to your direct perception?

 

[superluminal]

That you know of?
that's the point - how do you bring an important person (like say the president of america) to your direct perception?

Cripes! Can you just answer the question? Sheesh!

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd love to follow along with this, but, what? Huh?

Just pointing out the asumptions made by people.

For e.g. by just reading the post I was referencing, can you tell which group the poster belonged to?

So why did he, S, automatically make the assunptions he did?

Couldn't all 3 have crossed the river, albeit in different ways?

Reminds me of this joke:
Three blonde men are stranded on one side of a wide river, and don't know how to get across. The first man prays to God to make him smart enough to figure out how to cross the river, so God turns him into a brown-haired man and he swims across.
The second man prays to God to make him even smarter, so God turns him into a dark-haired man and he builds a boat and rows across.
Then the third man prays to God to make him the smartest of all, so God turns him into a woman and she walks across the bridge.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cripes! Can you just answer the question? Sheesh!

well you laid the condition "that I know of" - the answer is that if you have to already know it, then in this regard the answer is "Even more unlikely than getting george bush over for dinner tonight"

 

[superluminal]

Just pointing out the asumptions made by people.

For e.g. by just reading the post I was referencing, can you tell which group the poster belonged to?

So why did he, S, automatically make the assunptions he did?

Couldn't all 3 have crossed the river, albeit in different ways?

Reminds me of this joke:
Three blonde men are stranded on one side of a wide river, and don't know how to get across. The first man prays to God to make him smart enough to figure out how to cross the river, so God turns him into a brown-haired man and he swims across.
The second man prays to God to make him even smarter, so God turns him into a dark-haired man and he builds a boat and rows across.
Then the third man prays to God to make him the smartest of all, so God turns him into a woman and she walks across the bridge.

Yes, I've heard variations of that joke. I sometime sense truth in it though. I wonder what it would be like to let women handle things for a while? You know, give the female paradigm a try in the world. Hmmm...

 

[superluminal]

well you laid the condition "that I know of" - the answer is that if you have to already know it, then in this regard the answer is "Even more unlikely than getting george bush over for dinner tonight"

Sorry. Let me simplify. Do you believe god is "real" in the way humans commonly understand the meaning of the word "real"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Real? As opposed to imagination?

Yes

 

[superluminal]

Real? As opposed to imagination?

Yes

Thank you sir.

 

[SnakeLord]

Specious argument:

Assumptions:

1. One does not move.
2. Two jumps in headfirst.
3. Three can recognize crocodiles or evidence thereof.

Sure, there are a lot of assumptions. To even have this discussion we have to assume that there are three men standing by a river that might or might not contain crocodiles.

My three statements were a visual example of belief, not that if there was a christian standing by a river that might or might not contain crocodiles in it that he'd actually just jump in head first, (typically called a dive )

The idea is that a devout religious man has such conviction of his belief that he would never question it. "Does a god exist?" It wouldn't happen to someone that believes to his very core that a god does indeed exist. In this instance he is one of the jumpers. "There are no crocodiles". A firm, undoubted, absolute belief - supported by nothing other than that firm, undoubted belief. On the reverse side of that, (although I have yet to meet one), you would find the hardcore atheist - same firm, undoubted absolute belief that there aren't crocodiles in the river. The person often labelled as an agnostic doesn't know one way or the other and would just sit there awaiting the answer. The final example was of the typical atheist, (well, at the very least he'd argue with the jumpers, calling them delusional, illogical and idiotic). Typically speaking he would expect evidence before making the decision to jump. Of course, unless the crocodile actually shows itself, it can be a hard call to make.

Anyway, hoped that cleared that up.

Actually the example is after all the evidence has been collected - in otherwords, after all is said and done in the way of observation and fact finding, one person believes there is, one believes there is not and one person believes he doesn't know for sure

Then the supposed 'evidence' is not of any actual quality. If real evidence had have been collected, belief goes out the window and the people would 'know' whether there is or not. Let's say the evidence comes in the form of a pile of crocodile poo on the bank, and a big log looking animal swimming in the water. Belief is entirely irrelevant, it's a case of knowing.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then the supposed 'evidence' is not of any actual quality. If real evidence had have been collected, belief goes out the window and the people would 'know' whether there is or not. Let's say the evidence comes in the form of a pile of crocodile poo on the bank, and a big log looking animal swimming in the water. Belief is entirely irrelevant, it's a case of knowing.

The example was not meant to illustrate different aspects of collecting evidence - it was just meant to illustrate how people possessed of different beliefs act differently - it was originally posted in response to pavlosmarcos's defense of atheism as a a branch of agnosticism yet distinct from agnosticism

- in other words I am saying an atheist blatantly disregards everything established in religion - an agnostic hesitates or vacillates in their regarding/disregarding of religion and a theist regards religion (to the degree they are theistic)

 

[Cris]

Light,

Please read this link to help you understand the definitions of atheism etc.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

This is listed in the forum sticky FAQs thead.

 

[SnakeLord]

it was just meant to illustrate how people possessed of different beliefs act differently

Aye, and my post was just meant to illustrate how once evidence has been collected and the facts of the matter established, the word "belief" becomes moot.

- in other words I am saying an atheist blatantly disregards everything established in religion

Horse manure.

 

[lightgigantic]

Aye, and my post was just meant to illustrate how once evidence has been collected and the facts of the matter established, the word "belief" becomes moot.

Well of course - but it is people's nature to collect evidence differently - otherwise there would never be any debate on any subjects because it would all be self apparent!!
Therefore you see that there are some situations innvolving the belief of crocodiles in rivers or and others about the belief of god in the universe. By examining a person's activities you can undersatnd the nature of their beliefs.

In other words belief causes action. If I say I say I believe that god controls the universe and awards everyone what they deserve in life and the next moment rob someone the question is raised why did I disturb god's order in the universe. In other words inappropriate behaviour (deemed inappropriate by a set of beliefs) automatically raises suspicion. For instance if a person declared themselves as a staunch atheist yet went to church every week on their free will wouldn't you question their beliefs?